Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980 10-01 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1980, at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bill Lewis, James Bentley, Len Fernelius, Helen McClelland, Mary McDonald, David Runyan MEMBERS ABSENT: Del Johnson, Gordon Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Gordon Hughes, City Planner; Joyce Repya, Secretary 1. Approval of the Minutes Helen McClelland moved. approval of the minutes from September 3, 1980, meeting. James Bentley seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. II. Old Business Z-79-10 Braemar Associates. R-1 Single Family Dwelling to PRD -3 Planned Residential District. Gordon Hughes reminded the Commission that in late 1979, the Commission and City Council granted preliminary approval of this rezoning to PRD -3. This development plan incorporates a portion of the property acquired by the City for Delaney Boulevard. Mr. Hughes cxpla:ned that the proponents rave rit:w returned with overall development plans and are requesting final rezoning approval. As before, the site plan illustrates 89 condominium units located in eight buildings which represent an overall density of about 8.5 units per acre. Approximately two enclosed parking spaces and .5 exposed parking spaces per unit are proposed. The overall development plan also includes a grading plan, a concept landscape plan, utility plan, unit plans, and elevation drawings. In addition, the proponent has submitted a preliminary subdivision. Mr. Hughes indicated that Staff believes that the proponents have prepared an excellent development concept for the site. The plan preserves the slopes and vegetation in the west central portion of the site and paroposes a proper use of the wetland area in the east central portion of the site. Staffs criticism of the plans relate primarily to the apparent need for setback variances and the location of exposed parking areas. The PRD section of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 35 foot setback for buildings and parking from all property boundaries. The proposed plan violates this setback on all four sides. Staff believes that building setback variances along Delaney Boule- vard are reasonable due to the curvature of the street. However, Staff believes that the two buildings along Cahill should be adjusted by providing smaller unit sizes to meet the 35 foot setback. Similarly, the pool builidng should be adjusted to meet this setback from the north boundary. Community Development and Planning Commission October 1, 1980 Page 2 Mr. Hughes stated that Staff is also concerned with the location of exposed parking. The two parking areas along Delaney Boulevard are located enitrely within the setback area. Also, the driveway entrances to these parking areas exhibit poor site distances for Delaney traffic. Likewise, the parking area on the east side is within the setback area and abuts Cahill Road. It should be noted that this parking area was not shown on the preliminary plan. In addition to those concerns, Mr. Hughes added that a "concept" landscape plan has been submitted. The ordinance requires a detailed landscape plan and plant schedule. Staff agrees that it is difficult to prepare such a detailed plan with this site due to the abundance of existing vegetation which may be preserved. However, a more detailed plan should be prepared prior to final approval by the Council. Also, the exterior materials on all buildings should be noted on the plan. Therefore, Mr. Hughes said that Staff recommends overall plan approval with the understanding that the noted features should be modified. Approval is conditioned on final platting and subdivision dedication. Mr. Jack Barron, the proponent, advised the Commission that the dev- elopment would be built in phases with an attempt to preserve as much natural vegetation as possible. He added that the units will be big, different, well designed and afford the buyers freedom of redesigning their own units. In response to Mr. Fernelius's inquiry about the parking needs on the east side of the development, Mr. Barron explained that the parking on the east side facing Cahill Road will be below grade, cedar walled and should not be offensive to anyone. Helen McClelland expressed concern about the poor sight distance of the northerly parking lot. She noted appreciation of the developer's problem with locating the parking lot in such a way that people would not have to walk completely around the building to enter it. Mr. Barron explained that the owners would park underground and that the exposed parking was planned to serve guests to the building. He noted that it might be possible to move the parking lot further north, which would eliminate a curb cut by utilizing the entrance road. In response to Mr. Runyan's concern about the variance requests for the parking to be heard by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, Mr. Hughes informed the Commission that typically the Board of Appeals is approached for variance requests prior to final Council action. Due to the land negotiations between Mr. Barron and the City, the project had been in limbo for a while. For those reasons, when this item goes before Council for final zoning, staff will see the Board of Appeals action and execution of the final purchase agreement all at once Mr. Len Fernelius moved for preliminary plat and overall plan approval of the Braemar Associates development subject to satisfactory negotiations on the parking in the northwest corner and the submission of the landscape plan. David Runyan seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. Community Development and Planning Commission October 1, 1980 Page 3 III. New Business S-80-14 Lois 7th Addition. Generally located west of County Road No. 18 and south of County Road No. 39. Mr. Hughes informed the Commission that the subject property measures about 41,500 square feet in area. It is currently zoned PID Planned Industrual District. The proponent requests a one lot, one block plat of the property to clarify cumbersome legal descriptions. Much of this property was purchased as surplus road right of way from the County several years ago. Very recently, the County advised Staff that additional right of way is now needed from this property. This is apparently necessary to realign County Roan No. 39 to the south of its present location. Approximately 9,500 square feet of this property would be needed for this right of way. Mr. Hughes stated that Staff has encouraged the platting of this property to clarify legal descriptions. It must be stressed, he added, that his property is currently zoned PID. The platting is not required to obtain a building permit for this parcel. It will be necessary to obtain variances for this parcel because it is below the required two acre minimum lot size. Mr. Hughes indicated that he believed it would be very difficult to require the requested right of wav dedication in conjunction with this plat. He had advised the proponent of the ;,ccd ;v; ;-;ght of way and inotcu that the proponent is opposed to its dedication in that it represents about one fourth of his property. Further- more, the proponent acquired this property from the County with the presumption that the County would not then require additional right of way dedications (the property was in fact surplus right of way.) Staff believes that this was a reasonable presumption. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City advise the County and the City of Eden Prairie to proceed immediately with the acquisition of the necessary right of way. Such an acquisition should be undertaken prior to completion of the platting procedure. Mr. Paulsen, the proponent explained to the Commission that he was requesting a replat of the property to clarify the cumbersome legal descriptions. He said that the first he had heard about the County wanting an easement dedication was when City Staff notified him. He added that he still has heard nothing from the County, but has no intention of giving them a portion of his property which he had previously bought from them. Discussion ensued regarding the repercussions which could evolve if the plat is approved. Helen McClelland moved approval of the plat. Mary McDonald seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. Community Development and Planning Commission October 1, 1980 Page 4 S-80-15 R.L.S. for Lots 9 and 10 Dewey Hill. Generally located south of Shannon Circle. Mr. Hughes explained to the Commission that the proponents are re-. question approval of a Registered Land Survey to realign the common lot line between the two developed single family lots in Dewey Hill. This is necessi- tated due to driveway encroachment from Lot 10 on a small part of Lot 9. Setback requirements for both dwellings continue to be met. Mr. Hughes concluded that Staff recommends approval. Mr. Len Fernelius moved approval of the R.L.S.. James Bentley seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. Z-80-5 Evans Meineke. R-1 to R-2 Family Dwelling District. Lot 2, Block 2, Warden Acres Peterson Replat. Generally located south of Grove Street and west of the M.N.S. Railroad. Mr. Hughes reminded the Commission that one year ago the Commission and the Council approved a subdivision entitled "Warden Acres Peterson Replat" . At that time, the proponent requested a rezoning of one of the lots in the sub- division to R-2 Two Famiiv Dwelling District. i.e ;M ;MIJTTed the X9.1:.5. Rail- way. Other lots abutting the railway had been similarly zoned on previous occasions. The Commission reviewed the request on two occasions. On the first occasion, the Commission recommended denial of the rezoning, but on the second occasion, the Commission recommended approval. Ultimately, the City Council unanimously denied the requested rezoning to R-2 (the subdivision however was approved). Mr. Hughes stated that the proponent has now petiitoned again for a rezoning to R-2 for the lot abutting the railway. In his petition, the proponent cites that 1) buyers are not interested in constructing a single family dwelling on this lot and 2) the location of the lot warrants an R-2 zoning. Mr. Hughes concluded Staff recommended approval of this request in 1979 and continues to recommend approval. He also re -iterated the fact that the Council unanimously denied this request one year ago and if the proponent chooses to gain the Council's approval, he must illustrate new facts and circumstances re- garding his request. Mr. Meineke, the proponent presented photographs and a layout plan of the site to the Commission. He noted the improvements he had made to the house in the past year and indicated that he plans to build a double bungalow on the lot. Ms. McClelland advised the Commission that two of Mr. Meineke's neighbors were unable to attend the meeting; the Bassards and the Stevensons. Those neighbors had indicated to Ms. McClelland that they were unhappy with the way in which the lot had been developed and asked that it be expressed that they were originally` against the rezoning and continue to be against it. Community Developement and Planning Commission October 1, 1980 Page 5 Mr. Bob Ryder, a neighbor of Mr. Meineke's noted his objection to the rezoning of the lot to R-2. He added that Mr. Meineke has not improved the land, but has stripped it of all vegetation. He also indicated that with the R-2 zoning change the traffic on the street would be greatly increased. Mr. Ryder further voiced concern about the wooded property across Grove Street which is owned by Bermel Smaby and zoned R-1 possibly being zoned R-2 and adding to a snowball affect in which the neighborhood could eventually be full of R-2 lots. Mr. Lewis stated that he disagreed with Mr. Ryder because the subject property possesses unique problems from any other lot in the area, and should be considered accordingly. Mr. Runyan added that he could see a valid argument for the undesirabliity of a single family dwelling on the subject lot due to the railroad tracks and the power lines. Ms. McClelland stated that she could not see the necessity to increase the density on the street with a double bungalow. She added that Mr. Meineke has shown that he can build a double, but he is backed up right to the power line to meet the setback. Mr. Fernelius stated that he felt a man has a right to develop his own property and the plans are not that objectionable. He then moved approval of the rezoning to R-2 Two Family Dwelling District. James Bentley seconded the motion. The following voted: Aye: James Bentley, Len Fernelius, Mary McDonald, David Runyan and Bill Lewis; Nay; Helen !McClelland; +hc ...ct:... _..r:-ied. IV. Next Meeting Date: October 29, 1980, at 7:30 p.m. V. Adjournment: 8:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 947� Joyce Repya, Secretary